Allowed

B. Samson v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC12 Feb 2021WP/3207/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition by quashing a prohibitory order issued by the District Collector under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908. The Court directed the Sub Registrar to receive and process the sale deeds for registration without reference to the said notification, while reserving the right to refuse registration under Section 76 if legal grounds exist.

What did the court decide?

The third respondent (Sub Registrar) directed to receive and process the sale deeds and complete due formalities without reference to the prohibitory notification dated 26.09.2013.

B. Samson Vs The State of Telangana — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

FRIDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T.AMARNATH GOUD

¶6

Between:

¶7

WRIT PETIT|ON NO: 3207 OF 2021

¶8

B. Samson, S/o. Gurudas aged about 62 years, Occ Business, R/o. H. No..13_90, Bank Colony, Zaheerabad, Sangareddy District

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of T_elangana, Rep. by its principal Secretary, Revenue (Stamps and Hegtstration) Department, secretariat, Hvderabad.

¶12

The District coilector, Ranga Re_ddy Disfict, office at Lakdikapur, Hyderabad.

¶13

The Sub Registrar, Gachibowri, Seriringampaily Mandar, nangi Fieoliy oiitiict.

¶14

Petition under Articte 226 of the Constitution of tndia #fr5rtiPJi:T: circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court miy^-oe pleased to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of wrii of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in refusing to receive and register the sale deeds sought to be presented by the petitioner in respect of plot beaiing Nos. 128 and 129 part, admeasuring 300 sq.^yards in favourof chitkal Abhishek ai.,o too sq. Yards in favour of chitkal Anurag out of 600 Sq. yards in sy. No. 124lRU at Gopanpally Village, serilingampally Mandal and lvlunicipality, Ranga Reddy District, though the prohibitory order passed by the 2nd respondent in file No. Est4ig3l2o13, dated 2610912013 including the above land in the prohibitory list is set aside by the Hon'ble High courl, as illegal, unlawful and contrary to law and consequenfly direct the 3rd respondent to receive and register the sale deeds in respect of the above property, without reference to the notification dated 2610912013 issued by the 2nd respondent.

¶15

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶16

Petition under section 151 cPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to issue interim order directing the 3rd respondent to receive and register the sale deeds to be presented by the petitioner in respect of plot bearing Nos. 12g & .129 part, admeasuring 300 Sq. Yards in favour of chitkal Abhishek and 100 sq. yards in favour of chitkal Anurag out of 600 Sq. yards in sy. No. i24lRU at Gopanpally Village, Serilingampally Mandal and Ir/unicipality, Ranga Reddy District, without reference to the impugned District Gazette notification in file No. 8st473312013, dared 2610912013 issued by the 2nd respondent, pending disposal of main Writ Petition.

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI M. DAMODAR REDDY

¶18

Counsel forthe Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORDER

¶19

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTIC^{E T. AMARNATHGOUD}

¶20

Writ Petition No.32O7 OF² 02t

¶21

ORDER:

¶22

1 The petitioner seeks to declare the^{action of the third} respondent in refusing to receive and^{register the saledeeds} sought to be presented by him in^{respect of plot bearing Nos.128 &} 129 Part, admeasuring 300 sq.^{yards in favour of Chitkal Abhishek} and 10O Sq. Yards in favour of Chitkal^{Anurag out of 600 sq. yards} in Sy.No.124/RU at Gopanpally^{Village, Serilingampally Mandal,} Ranga Reddy District through the^{prohibitory order passed by the} second respondent in File^No.ES l⁴⁷³³ 12013,^{dated 26.9 .2013} including the above land in the^prohibitory list as^illegaland arbitrary and consequently^prays to direct^the third^{respondent to} receive and register the sale deeds in respect of^{the aboveproperty} without reference to the notification dated^{26.9.2013 issued by the} second respondent.

¶23

2 Heard both sides.

¶24

3 The learned counsel for the petitioner would inform this Court that the aforesaid Notification dated 26.09.2013^was considered by the common High Court for the^{States of} Telangana and Andhra Pradesh eariier in Writ^Petition No.19069 of 2Ol4 and the common High Court^directed entertainment of the document for registration in that^case without reference to the said Notification. He would also point out that similar were the observations of another^learned single Jud'ge of the common High Court for the States of

¶25

Teiangana and Andhra Pradesh in Writ Petition No.3849 1 of 2018. Perusa,l of the Notification dated 26.09.2013 would demonstrate that the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, purported to issue the said Notification notifying lands under Section 22-A(ll(al of the Registration Act, 1908 (for brevity, 'the Act of 1908') and invited objections and suggestions from the alfected people.

¶26

4 Section 22-A(1(a) of the Act of 1908 prohibits registration of documents relating to transfer of immovable property, alienation or transfer of which is prohibited under any statute of the State or the Central Government. Significantly, no procedure is prescribed to the effect that a prohibitory list in relation to the lands which would be covered by Section 22-A(I)(a\ of the Act of 1908 should be prepared only after calling for objections. The procedure underlying the Notification dated 26.9.2013 was therefore not sourced in an1' lau, and the orders aforestated directing the registration authorities to ignore the same cannot be said to be u,ithout basis

¶27

5 In that vieu, of the matter, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the third respondent to receive and process the document presented by the petitioner without reference to the Notilication dated 26.09.2013 issued by the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District. In the event the said document is

¶28

¶29

found to be fit for registration, the third respondent shall complete the due formalities in accordance with 1aw and release the document. However, if he still finds any ground to exercise power under Section 76 of tkre Act of 1908 and refuse registration, he shall pass a reasoned order and communicate the same to the petitioner. This exercise shall be completed expeditiously and in arry event, not later than one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is also made clear that mere registration of this document would not confer title upon the property covered thereby, if it is otherwise wanting, and would not preclude the Government from taking appropriate steps as warranted by law, if it seeks to assert any right or titie over the said 1and.

¶30

6 Miscellaneous petitions pending in this Writ petition shall stand closed in the light of this final order. No order as to costs.

¶31

SD/. K.SAILESHI ASSISTANT REGIST

//TRUE COPY'

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The Principal Secretary, Revenue (Stamps and Registration) Department, State of Telangana, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶36

The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, Office at Lakdikapul, Hyderabad.

¶37

The Sub Registrar, Gachibowli, Serilingampally [t4andal, Ranga Reddy District

¶38

One CC to Sri [trl. Damodar Reddy, Advocate IOPUC]

¶39

Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶40

Two CD Copies

'ry"

HIGH COURT

DATED:1210212021

ORDER

WP.No.3207 ol 2021

5 TA
1 i{
oo 2 7 rEB 2021
-b
*

¶47

DISPOSING OF THE WP WITHOUT COSTS

¶48

I
A 6
PI ,LV ).<br>

B. Samson v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B. Samson v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hazari Madan Mohan Vs The State of Telangana and

M. Mani Vs The Stale of Telangana

T. Rajender Reddy Vs The State of Telangana and 3 Others

M/s Mahaveer Charitable Trust Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. Sara Achamma Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. M. Laxmi Eswaramma and another Vs The State of Telangana and 2 others